W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-p3p-spec@w3.org > April 2003

Re: [ietf-provreg] [BH] P3P and Extensible Provisioning Protocol

From: by way of Joseph Reagle <edlewis@arin.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 18:06:53 -0500
To: public-p3p-spec@w3.org
Message-Id: <200304031806.53965.edlewis@arin.net>

In a nutshell...

(I'm one of the co-chairs of the WG, Jaap Akkerhuis is the other, but
I am not an implementor of the protocol.)

Please note that I took "public-p3p-spec@w3.org" off the cc list - to
avoid cross-posting and I'm not on that list.  If anyone wants to
forward this message to that list, you have my permission.

At 18:20 -0500 4/2/03, Joseph Reagle wrote:
>1. Did you find anything particularly troublesome with adapting P3P to
> your context from a protocol/binding position? (I assume not, you just
> include P3P in your XML.) Do you have any scenarios where your XML
> application would also be transported over HTTP, which itself could
> conceivable have a P3P policy? (Or is this an unlikely scenario?)

Not that I am aware of - trouble with adapting P3P, that is.

On HTTP - one of the items in our charter has been to investigate
"other transports" with "other" meaning "not TCP" in the context.
But to date, there's been no sustained interest in pursuing any
transport other than TCP (with TLS) but multiple members of the WG.
It's not so much that HTTP was rejected, no one suggested doing it.

>2. What led you to make the changes to the vocabulary that you did? (Some
>terms are removed, some are altered -- we're these casual changes or did
>you have significant market/policy tensions in your app context?)

To some extent because our protocol is "business to business" and
constrained in it's reach, as opposed to being "person to business"
and in general use.

>3. Your XML app does use schema, did you give any thought to actually
> using elements from the P3P namespace and if so, what discouraged that?

I'd have to research that.

>4. Do you have any other feedback that I've missed? <smile/>

None, other than to say that I thought the P3P specification is well
written and organized, especially from the perspective of someone who
has written specifications in the past.  I like having the
requirement clearly stated and then use prose to convey the spirit.
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

I've had it with world domination.  The maintenance fees are too high.
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2003 18:06:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:17 UTC